UK lawmakers reject PM Johnson's request to hold an early election

[Slip]

3 hours ago, grumpy 4680 said:

    I believe British law makers are acting illegally, making laws and decisions just to suit there own agenda's,

Laws are made in the countries interest, and should not be just for themselves.

   So Boris needs to do more to act against those law breaking criminals.

 

22 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

This is true Brexiteer genius. 

Rookiescot I have a question.  Are you basing your comment on the multiple linguistic errors in the post or the multiple logical fallacies?  Perhaps it is both?

[Bluespunk]

12 minutes ago, JAG said:

I'm not so sure. The precedent that an opposition, with a few government rebels, can deny a general election (even by merely abstaining) has now been established. The temptation to do so again, should the opposition feel that they may lose, and the government rebels are certain that they will lose their seats, will be great. I think that maybe this will be strung out for a considerable time.

 

The irony is that the more that the opposition and rebels are seen to be stringing it out, the more they will alienate the electorate, the more obvious it will become just why they are denying an election, and the more it is likely that they will lose. Frustrating for Johnson and his government, but also probably to their ultimate advantage.

 

I wouldn't mind betting that, if Boris Johnson wins a majority when the election eventually comes, next on the agenda after Brexit will be the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act !

 

A peerage for Mr Speaker Bercow is perhaps looking a bit iffy as well!

Well we'll have to disagree on how well johnson will do in an election, but that isn't really what this is about.

 

The opposition don't trust him and will not give him the space to go for a no deal exit. I don't blame them.

 

I believe they want an election, but not until either a deal or an extension to find one is in place.

 

johnson and his fellow no dealers have only got themselves to blame, after all the current rebels are merely mimicking those of the no dealers.

[Nigel Garvie]

6 minutes ago, JAG said:

I'm not so sure. The precedent that an opposition, with a few government rebels, can deny a general election (even by merely abstaining) has now been established. The temptation to do so again, should the opposition feel that they may lose, and the government rebels are certain that they will lose their seats, will be great. I think that maybe this will be strung out for a considerable time.

 

The irony is that the more that the opposition and rebels are seen to be stringing it out, the more they will alienate the electorate, the more obvious it will become just why they are denying an election, and the more it is likely that they will lose. Frustrating for Johnson and his government, but also probably to their ultimate advantage.

 

I wouldn't mind betting that, if Boris Johnson wins a majority when the election eventually comes, next on the agenda after Brexit will be the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act !

 

A peerage for Mr Speaker Bercow is perhaps looking a bit iffy as well!

It would probably be a good idea to get a grip on what PARLIMENTARY sovereignty actually means. It doesn't matter who is PM, if you can't command a majority you are just dog dirt. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act was a brilliant idea, it is there to stop PMs abusing their power by calling an election whenever it suited them (And to hell with the country).  Imagine if Corbyn or any other opposition leader, chose a moment to call an election just because it was to his personal advantage, how would you feel. Most people vote every 5 years in a GE and after that they just want Parliament to do it's job, whoever comes out on top, people get totally <deleted> off if you keep on asking them to vote.

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Nigel Garvie said:

It would probably be a good idea to get a grip on what PARLIMENTARY sovereignty actually means. It doesn't matter who is PM, if you can't command a majority you are just dog dirt. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act was a brilliant idea, it is there to stop PMs abusing their power by calling an election whenever it suited them (And to hell with the country).  Imagine if Corbyn or any other opposition leader, chose a moment to call an election just because it was to his personal advantage, how would you feel. Most people vote every 5 years in a GE and after that they just want Parliament to do it's job, whoever comes out on top, people get totally <deleted> off if you keep on asking them to vote.

I managed to get a copy of Jeremy Corbyns yearly planner.

 

[Slip]

19 minutes ago, vogie said:

I managed to get a copy of Jeremy Corbyns yearly planner.

 

Nice one Vogie.  It did genuinely make me laugh.  I believe it has been updated since then.  December now reads "Move into No. 10". ????

Edited September 10, 2019 by Slip

[Baerboxer]

12 hours ago, vogie said:

Seiously, you want "3-4 more years" of this clusterfork, they have more clowns than Billy Smarts circus, with Bercow being the Ringmaster.

Can a government govern the country in a minority, I wouldn't have thought so and as much as the remainers would like to believe there isn't a party to topple this one, Boris is still the most popular leader in the land by a country mile, that is why the other parties are scared to death of an election, they would lose.

 

 

The whole lot are a shower of <deleted>. Government, Opposition and all the others. 

 

But, parliament is the sovereign body and the HoC decides if an early election can be called; not the PM and not Boris.

 

Boris is just as scared to hold another advisory referendum because he knows he'd likely not get the result he and his ERG goons want. That would pave the way for Farage PLC to challenge the Tories at an election. 

 

The thought of a Corbyn government is even worse.

 

Either way, Boris and Corbyn, for self interests and own agendas are playing into the hands of the extremist Sturgeon who is just waiting for her excuse to scream for another "once in a lifetime" referendum. So the clowns, wearing blue or red will not only have to deal with the EU and Brexit but also the traiterous wee Nippy looking to carve out her own place in history.

[bangrak]

Is there any chance to stop the kiddy stuff about these brexit topics? Not yet tired about spreading, ...or reacting on, plain bull?

It should not be hard to admit some basic facts, but it seems quite impossible for a dozen and a half dyed through, whether brainwashed or plain obsessive, 'hard brexiteers', 'no deal' fans.

Before saying 'bye-bye' to that deluded bunch, I though want to put a few FACTS in a row, not even interested in their reactions.

The consultative 2016 referendum about remain or leave, was a, most stupid initiative of the self-imbued, D Cameron, ...with at the time a majority of Tories following him, ...or at least, then, still, pretending to.

The idea with it was to get a 'plebiscite', to comfort Cameron's position as PM, AND, more especially as the undisputed leader of the Conservative Party, towards 'Euroseptic', erm, 'traitors'(?) in the own ranks, to call them to order, or kick them out.

The events have proved to tun towards a very different result.

Now, whatever one might think about D Cameron, and how outside of reality he might have been, the man cannot have been enough of a total moron, and even so the people around him were for sure not all, to start anything else as a consultative referendum when based only on a 50% majority of the participants in the vote.

I, personally, have no doubt that, when ever it would have been a binding referendum being organised, it would have been clearly told so, also in the organising law, and, by all means, the majority needed, on one or the other direction, would have been a 'qualified' one (different possibilities available: from 50%+1 of the total quorum of potential participating citizens, to 2/3, even 75%, of the participants) for any such important, crucial, matter for the country!

In its existing, consultative, form, there was, indeed, no mention at all of deal, ...or no deal, as it was most totally out of the scope to leave the EU in a 'hard' way, without a deal, whatever the result might become, ...as, I repeat myself, the referendum was, purely: consultative!

It was only later, well after the results were made publics, that the first voices came up mentioning a possible 'no deal' as the ultimate treath of the brexiteers towards the EU, to bring it on its knees and accept the dictates of certifiable egocentric lunatics à-la Farage, Johnson brother Nr1, and their gang.

Enough of it for now, and forever here for what I am concerned, when there is no positive reaction for me to understand it is not just a pure waste. No pearls from me, no pigs among the brexiteers either, as this is supposed to remain a factual, positive, exchange between educated individuals, well in control of mood and temper, ...isn't it? 

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Well we'll have to disagree on how well johnson will do in an election, but that isn't really what this is about.

 

The opposition don't trust him and will not give him the space to go for a no deal exit. I don't blame them.

 

I believe they want an election, but not until either a deal or an extension to find one is in place.

 

johnson and his fellow no dealers have only got themselves to blame, after all the current rebels are merely mimicking those of the no dealers.

 

To be fair why would anyone not trust Johnson to act honestly, ethically and without self interest?

 

The fact he's an exposed serial liar who lies whenever convenient, often shows little knowledge of the facts, has hinted he won't abide by the law if it suits him, expelled party member MP's who dared show independent thought and conscience in an unprecedented move likely to divide his party even further and who still hasn't actually put forward any concrete ideas to anyone. His biggest fan appears to be Trump, which in itself says it all!

 

Still, Corbyn could and almost certainly would be worse!

 

 

[Baerboxer]

10 minutes ago, bangrak said:

Is there any chance to stop the kiddy stuff about these brexit topics? Not yet tired about spreading, ...or reacting on, plain bull?

It should not be hard to admit some basic facts, but it seems quite impossible for a dozen and a half dyed through, whether brainwashed or plain obsessive, 'hard brexiteers', 'no deal' fans.

Before saying 'bye-bye' to that deluded bunch, I though want to put a few FACTS in a row, not even interested in their reactions.

The consultative 2016 referendum about remain or leave, was a, most stupid initiative of the self-imbued, D Cameron, ...with at the time a majority of Tories following him, ...or at least, then, still, pretending to.

The idea with it was to get a 'plebiscite', to comfort Cameron's position as PM, AND, more especially as the undisputed leader of the Conservative Party, towards 'Euroseptic', erm, 'traitors'(?) in the own ranks, to call them to order, or kick them out.

The events have proved to tun towards a very different result.

Now, whatever one might think about D Cameron, and how outside of reality he might have been, the man cannot have been enough of a total moron, and even so the people around him were for sure not all, to start anything else as a consultative referendum when based only on a 50% majority of the participants in the vote.

I, personally, have no doubt that, when ever it would have been a binding referendum being organised, it would have been clearly told so, also in the organising law, and, by all means, the majority needed, on one or the other direction, would have been a 'qualified' one (different possibilities available: from 50%+1 of the total quorum of potential participating citizens, to 2/3, even 75%, of the participants) for any such important, crucial, matter for the country!

In its existing, consultative, form, there was, indeed, no mention at all of deal, ...or no deal, as it was most totally out of the scope to leave the EU in a 'hard' way, without a deal, whatever the result might become, ...as, I repeat myself, the referendum was, purely: consultative!

It was only later, well after the results were made publics, that the first voices came up mentioning a possible 'no deal' as the ultimate treath of the brexiteers towards the EU, to bring it on its knees and accept the dictates of certifiable egocentric lunatics à-la Farage, Johnson brother Nr1, and their gang.

Enough of it for now, and forever here for what I am concerned, when there is no positive reaction for me to understand it is not just a pure waste. No pearls from me, no pigs among the brexiteers either, as this is supposed to remain a factual, positive, exchange between educated individuals, well in control of mood and temper, ...isn't it? 

 

Just one small point of reference (not wishing to be picky) but a referendum can never be more that advisory, consultative seeking public opinion under the UK constitution. (Source: UK Constitution Law Association).

 

Cameron, and others, on both sides, deliberately mislead the electorate into thinking otherwise. Hence the anger and the mess politicians have now created.

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

But remaining in the customs union was what vote leave promised us.

 

 

 

Ah but that was then and today is now! Farage, Boris, Gove - wouldn't know the truth of it bit them and will say what they think the electorate want to hear. 

[baboon]

8 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

To be fair why would anyone not trust Johnson to act honestly, ethically and without self interest?

 

The fact he's an exposed serial liar who lies whenever convenient, often shows little knowledge of the facts, has hinted he won't abide by the law if it suits him, expelled party member MP's who dared show independent thought and conscience in an unprecedented move likely to divide his party even further and who still hasn't actually put forward any concrete ideas to anyone. His biggest fan appears to be Trump, which in itself says it all!

 

Still, Corbyn could and almost certainly would be worse!

 

 

How could he actually be worse? Bankrupt the country? We ARE bankrupt. Worsen worker's rights? I doubt that. Tie the UK up in a bow and proudly hand it over to the American Republican Party, NHS included? Hardly. So what, then? How is he this devil incarnate, compared with these spivs, chancers and old Etonians who want us out of Europe? 

I honestly don't get it, other than a systematic campaign by the likes of the Sun and the Mail.

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, baboon said:

How could he actually be worse? Bankrupt the country? We ARE bankrupt. Worsen worker's rights? I doubt that. Tie the UK up in a bow and proudly hand it over to the American Republican Party, NHS included? Hardly. So what, then? How is he this devil incarnate, compared with these spivs, chancers and old Etonians who want us out of Europe? 

I honestly don't get it, other than a systematic campaign by the likes of the Sun and the Mail.

I know how strongly you feel about a Labour government baboon, even Jeremy Corbyn doesn't think the EU is any good for workers rights. Have a listen.

 

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, JAG said:

Umh, it rather appears that "non binding votes" are ones that do not go your way. "Binding votes" however are ones that go your way - like denying a general election, which even Blind Pugh would see as the only way out of this mess.

 

Nope. A binding vote would be something like an election. Where the results are translated into an action e.g. electing some one.

 

A referendum, in the UK constitution can only be advisory or consultative e.g. the government seeking the electorate's views on something.

 

Cameron lied when he implied otherwise.

 

The clamor of both Conservatives and Labor to invoke Article 50 and repeatedly say they'd respect the referendum result, which both campaigned on in their manifestos in May's snap election was political smoke and mirrors. Labor, at that time thought promising to leave would get them elected to govern and the Conservatives, still bitterly divided, thought it was the way to hang on to power. Things have since moved on. 

 

There are two ways out. A fresh referendum, which will advise parliament if the electorate's wishes have changed or remain the same, provide an opportunity to ask more definitive questions on leaving options to gauge public preferences or hold an early GE in which parties can include their policy, plans and solutions to Brexit as part of their manifesto. The latter though would be fought on many issues other than Brexit. That could cause issues for many voters.

 

 

[baboon]

7 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Ah but that was then and today is now! Farage, Boris, Gove - wouldn't know the truth of it bit them and will say what they think the electorate want to hear. 

'No, I think you will find that what you mean is: How could Project Fear be so dirty as to post this rubbish. The UK has voted, now is the time to act on their wishes and move on.' Before they look up from their Showbiz of the day and notice something awry...

[Baerboxer]

9 minutes ago, baboon said:

How could he actually be worse? Bankrupt the country? We ARE bankrupt. Worsen worker's rights? I doubt that. Tie the UK up in a bow and proudly hand it over to the American Republican Party, NHS included? Hardly. So what, then? How is he this devil incarnate, compared with these spivs, chancers and old Etonians who want us out of Europe? 

I honestly don't get it, other than a systematic campaign by the likes of the Sun and the Mail.

 

Corbyn has openly supported terrorists, that attack the UK and it's allies. He wants to re-nationalize many things. Didn't work so well last time! (Although to be fair some things can't be left to free enterprise and foreign ownership or poor privatization). His deal appears to be very similar to Mays. He would almost certainly support the break up of the UK and likely sell Gibraltar and The Falklands down the swanney regardless of what their citizens wanted. More nationalization, more bureaucracy, more central government control and interference, lots of promises that must be funded by tax increases. And he's promised to scrap our nuclear deterrent. He wouldn't be trusted by the US and EU and so we'd loose their security co-operation and sharing. Likely a reduced UK with no nuclear arms, would loose it's permanent seat on the UK security council too.

 

Unfortunately the choice is the chancers, spivs and Old Etonians, Harrovians, Oxbridge types form wealthy families who won't be badly affected whatever happens.

 

Not much of choice is it?

[baboon]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

I know how strongly you feel about a Labour government baboon, even Jeremy Corbyn doesn't think the EU is any good for workers rights. Have a listen.

 

I did. Though I would prefer the full context rather than a snippet.

But yes, if you want some Bono <deleted> about the EU "singing with one voice", don't look to me. However when confronted with crappy options, Trump's America and a Conservative Party desperate to do what is best for themselves or take the country down with them, I will stick with the EU.

[Baerboxer]

12 minutes ago, baboon said:

'No, I think you will find that what you mean is: How could Project Fear be so dirty as to post this rubbish. The UK has voted, now is the time to act on their wishes and move on.' Before they look up from their Showbiz of the day and notice something awry...

 

Project Fear - you mean the genuine concerns raised by intellectuals, academics, economists, etc etc? Fears that even the Labor Party are now embracing?

 

Noticeable that many senior non EU foreign leaders, such as Abe and Trudeau recognize these real threats.

 

But to be fair the highly intellectual Trump and the very democratic Western friendly Putin think leaving with no deal is a good idea!

[beautifulthailand99]

Tommy still in chokee backs Boris.

 

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/vb5bv3/tommy-robinson-endorses-boris-johnson

 

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Scott
Edited for Fair Use

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Corbyn has openly supported terrorists, that attack the UK and it's allies. He wants to re-nationalize many things. Didn't work so well last time! (Although to be fair some things can't be left to free enterprise and foreign ownership or poor privatization). His deal appears to be very similar to Mays. He would almost certainly support the break up of the UK and likely sell Gibraltar and The Falklands down the swanney regardless of what their citizens wanted. More nationalization, more bureaucracy, more central government control and interference, lots of promises that must be funded by tax increases. And he's promised to scrap our nuclear deterrent. He wouldn't be trusted by the US and EU and so we'd loose their security co-operation and sharing. Likely a reduced UK with no nuclear arms, would loose it's permanent seat on the UK security council too.

 

Unfortunately the choice is the chancers, spivs and Old Etonians, Harrovians, Oxbridge types form wealthy families who won't be badly affected whatever happens.

 

Not much of choice is it?

British Airways is on strike. The railway is owned by foreigners and is ludicrously expensive and provides a sh!te service. As is electricity, water, air traffic control, airports, gas.. Why are we not already thriving as a nation? We should be the envy of the world by now if the markets are left to decide.

Thatcher supported Pinochet, the Saudis are good friends of ours, as are the Pakistanis, so the terrorist card doesn't work either. Abdul Haq?

 

Fair enough if Corbyn is not to your liking. Just don't vote for him and encourage others not to do so. But to portray him as the Antichrist is simply unreasonable, especially given (y)our GBPeso is in fast decline because of the Conservative Party. They called the referendum. They were responsible for carrying it out. They still cannot do so even as we gurgle down the plughole.

How is this mess Corbyn's fault?

[Pique Dard]

boris = political suicide

[baboon]

Back Boris. Unless he comes up with some kind of compromise in order to avoid No Deal. These tossers are just waiting on instructions from the mothership on who to turn their guns on next. 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Scott

[NeoDinosaw]

11 hours ago, Basil B said:

I would have settled for 60% of votes cast...

I would want a two-thirds majority.  This should have been written-in before the voting occurred.   It would then be the same as the majority required to pass a proposal for  a general election  - which is one the the votes that Bonkin' Boris failed to achieve the other night.

Edited September 10, 2019 by NeoDinosaw
formerly confusing

[stephenterry]

16 hours ago, MartinKal said:

It wouldnt make much difference to the lives of ordinary Brits, or they'd continue to be sucked into subservience and vassilage to the Franco-German empire?

Better to have the US then, as our masters? Which is probably just as ludicrous a statement as above - or it might not be when the UK is flooded with chlorinated chicken and hormone injected meat products and massive sugar dumping in packaged foods.

 

Franco-German Empire? ???????????? 

[joecoolfrog]

On 9/10/2019 at 1:12 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

To be fair there is not much point having any more elections. The concept of the losing side consenting to the public vote which is the cornerstone of our democracy has been destroyed by remainers. This was the ultimate throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just wait until one day they win an election and then are not allowed to govern(because the voters were too stump stupid to make the "right" decision and further elections are needed). Delicious irony for sure! The age of whoever throws the biggest tantrum winning their political aims will be a rocky ride.

The Conservatives had a wafer thin majority , in that instance you rely on parliamentary support , been that way all my lifetime.

[joecoolfrog]

On 9/10/2019 at 3:19 AM, JonnyF said:

Remainer MP's call for a vote for 2 years and when they are offered one, they refuse it.

 

Absolute Cowards.

Call them what you like , they outsmarted Boris.

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

Call them what you like , they outsmarted Boris.

I think the British electorate will decide who outsmarted who here, when the opposition decide to come out from the woodwork and realise an election cannot be avoided for ever.

[joecoolfrog]

On 9/10/2019 at 4:26 AM, JonnyF said:

Huge difference. You are a member of the public and will obviously vote according to your opinion. Whether you accept the result or not makes little difference.

 

Jo Swinson is leader of the lib dems. She should respect the democratic vote of the people. She calls for a second referendum and then says she would not respect the vote if she lost. Do you not understand that is a problem for an elected politician?   

Nigel Farage said , on the evening of the vote which he thought he had lost , that he would keep on fighting for Brexit.

So what is the difference between what he and Jo Swinson said ?

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

Nigel Farage said , on the evening of the vote which he thought he had lost , that he would keep on fighting for Brexit.

So what is the difference between what he and Jo Swinson said ?

Was that a serious question??

 

Farage is not an Member of the UK Parliament and therefore does not vote on legislation to prevent or allow Brexit. ????

[JonnyF]

19 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

Call them what you like , they outsmarted Boris.

Not yet. Early days.

[JonnyF]

40 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Better to have the US then, as our masters? Which is probably just as ludicrous a statement as above - or it might not be when the UK is flooded with chlorinated chicken and hormone injected meat products and massive sugar dumping in packaged foods.

 

Franco-German Empire? ???????????? 

We'll be signing a trade deal with the US. That's all. We won't become a state of the USA, like we will become a state of the United States of Europe within a decade if we don't leave.